The Court of Justice of the European Union (“ECJ”) dismissed the appeal brought by Versalis SpA (“Versalis”), in which it sought the annulment of a decision by the General Court (“GC”) which largely upheld the fines imposed by the Commission for participation in the synthetic rubber cartel. In its decision of November 2006, the Commission imposed fines totaling EUR 519 million on five groups of companies for their participation in a cartel in the synthetic rubber cartel. ENI SpA (“ENI”) and its subsidiary Polimeri Europa (name later changed to Versalis) were fined, jointly and severally, EUR 272.25 million for their participation in the cartel. The GC largely upheld the Commission’s decision, but found that the Commission had erred in increasing the fine imposed jointly and severally on Versalis and its parent company ENI by 50% for repeat infringement because the change in structure and control of the ENI group companies concerned in this case was particularly complex and the Commission had not proved to the requisite legal standard that ENI and its subsidiary had in fact repeated an infringement. Both ENI and Veralis appealed the GC’s judgment. The ECJ dismissed ENI’s appeal in May 2013. By its judgment of 13 June 2013, the ECJ dismissed Versalis’ appeal. The ECJ concluded that the GC did not err in law by holding that the Commission had been correct to attribute to Versalis liability for the infringements of Enichem, another company in the ENI group, whose relevant business was transferred to Versalis during the infringement. Further, the ECJ found that the GC had been correct to find that ENI had not provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of exercise of actual decisive influence. The ECJ also dismissed the Commission’s cross appeal. The ECJ held that the GC had been correct in holding that the Commission did not provide sufficiently detailed and precise evidence in the contested decision to support a finding that the same undertaking within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU had repeated an infringement and by reducing the fine omposed on Versalis to reflect this. Source: Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Case C-511/11 P, Versalis (formerly Polimeri Europa) v Commission, 13/6/2013